Wow! Four months ago, identity was just a word to me. When I used it, it was usually followed by “theft” or “crisis,” depending on context. Today, after nearly completing CI597C, the word is much more than an adjective prefix (I just made that term up!). It is a conversation starter; a living, breathing, abstract concept; and a conundrum of sorts. My identity is who I am – or is it simply who I perceive myself to be? It is who I am to others – or is it simply who others perceive me to be?

Even after so many questions and conversations about identity during the past four months, I can safely and confidently say that my definition of identity has not changed during the past four months. That would be too simple and finite, implying that I have reached the end, or a destination in terms of understanding. No, my definition of identity has not changed; it has evolved, moving forward along an existing journey, with more twists and turns ahead in every future conversation. You know the conversations: after a few minutes, someone makes an excellent point that really drives home the idea of identity and silences everyone for a few seconds as they retreat into contemplation of the idea. Then, someone begins, “That makes sense, but…” and sheds light on the exception to that rule, the one that reignites the discussion for another round.

Really, is this evolution and flexible certainty over the definition of identity any different than my identity itself? I have been the same person for the past 10 years of my life…for the most part. I am the same person with this set of friends as I am with that set of friends…generally speaking, of course. I know who I am…usually. I behave predictably…most of the time.

In a previous blog post about an individual’s identity varying between communities of which they belong, I state that the same person demonstrating one set of knowledge and abilities can be simultaneously viewed differently by two different communities. The example I gave is that I see myself as someone interested in researching camps. In the research community, I am sometimes identified as a ‘camp expert,’ whereas in the camp community I am sometimes identified as a ‘research expert.’ Both the research and camp communities would find the idea of me identified as an expert in their respective community to be humorous. What define my identity for each community are the elements of my identity that set me a part from other members in that community.

Naturally, this led to discussion with classmates who disagree with this idea. The ideas and arguments include identity being as simple as your name or avatar, how others perceive you, or a thing that resides within you. Who is right? Is anyone right? Are we all right? Is one of us more right than any of the others?

While thinking about the idea that identity is strictly something that resides within you, I remembered a sound bite from a talk show. It occurred after season 1 of Donald Trump’s The Apprentice had ended, when contestants were doing reunions and other talk show appearances. Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth was addressing how she was portrayed on the show in similar fashion to her quotes in this article about “the evil sista of reality television.” Omarosa was the villain of season 1, but she continually claims that she was the victim of editing, and that she is really a pleasant person. The other person at the interview said something to the effect of, “They can only edit footage that they have, sweetheart.” In essence, the other person was telling Omarosa that she can claim the screaming, aggressiveness, unhappiness, and laziness were part of an attack on her but those actions and traits are part of who she is. The editors couldn’t make that up unless it really existed.

Identity can be defined and perceived in many ways. It can be split into little bite size samples, like appetizers at Fridays, with different people each getting a little slice. Sometimes you control who eats which appetizer, and sometimes the other people grab at the plate before you even see it. Identity can also be a concrete thing that changes when viewed by others, like a piece of art in a gallery. Determining whether the Mona Lisa of your identity is smiling or frowning really is in the eye of the beholder, even though the expression is identical on the canvas. Identity can be defined by an individual and redefined by others – or the individual.

I wonder what my identity is with regards to my classmates in CI597C. Am I a pain the butt, or a humble apologizer, thanks to my post on Have Nots? Am I a technologically fluent person who likes to talk and philosophize? Am I a camp dork? Am I a Mac lovin’, Tweet rockin’ geek? Am I someone who loves The Office and Scrubs and invites you over to watch? Am I a car-selling, house-buying, bike-riding, job-hunting adjective-verb lover who shares with the community? Or are these suggestions merely my own construct of my identity, and how I think and prefer I appear to you, based on who I think I am when I am around you. I’d be interested in hearing you tell me what you think my identity is…

The point is this: in the argument of whether your identity is something that resides in you or is determined by other people, you have to remember that they can only edit footage that they have, sweetheart.

Radio Lab recently had a show called (So-Called) Life in which a woman in need of a transplant test her children’s DNA. They find that the children match the father’s DNA, but not hers! Additional testing reveals that the DNA in her blood is completely different from the DNA in her saliva — she is, essentially, two different people.

<SPOILER ALERT>

Basically, doctors have concluded that she is a chimera. That is, her mother was pregnant with two embryos that fused within the first few days of life. They did not blend, but rather the new embryo contained some of the parts from baby A and some of the parts from baby B — she was her own twin sister. To put it into perspective, if the eggs had not completely fused, this woman would have been Siamese Twins. Instead, she is both twins in one body.

She started talking about the thought the she is two people, that her salivary glands differ from her circulatory system, that she has two different bodies inside of her. Naturally, this raised some interesting questions. What is her identity? Is she two people? Is she one person? What is a person, if the DNA suggests that she is two persons?

Here is Tweet Talk 3, featuring Mike Montalto-Rook, Lis Boyer, Donna DeNoble, and myself (Brandon Rubenstein). We feel like we have hit our stride in terms of dynamics, content, and flow, but we welcome your feedback!

Tweet Talk 3 - 2008 TLT Symposium.mp3

I acknowledge that my previous blog entry about Have-nots was written with the intent of being controversial in an effort to induce discussion. If you read it, you will notice that there is shock value in paragraphs 1 & 2 and I
apologize for making anyone feel insulted. In reflection, shock value was not the smartest avenue for starting an intellectual discussion, as the topic was almost completely avoided on Thursday at the risk of touching off WWIII. But I would like to emphasize
the argument in paragraph 3, which is where I suggest a new direction
for future discussions of Haves and Have-nots.

Saying “We need to be aware that there are Have-nots” is a finite
statement that leaves no room for discussion. That is why I am suggesting a new
statement that opens the conversation up in two areas: 1) How can we
make it our responsibility to encourage the Haves to take advantage of
their resources and opportunities and use them to benefit Haves and
Have-nots a like, and 2) To change the conversation from the finite,
“We need to be aware of Have-nots” to the open-ended “We can overcome
the obstacles facing Have-nots by…”

A classmate said both in class and in her blog that a lot of the conversations at
the symposium “were mostly talking ABOUT people like me rather than
WITH people like me.” She and I share a similar thought, in that we both want
to include Have-nots. For me, this means future conversations should
focus on including Have-nots among those who benefit from the uses of
technology. For her, it means including Have-nots in the conversation
itself. Again, let me reiterate the commonality that we both emphasize the inclusion of Have-nots.

Despite the shock value of paragraphs 1 & 2, hopefully you can see
the merit of paragraph 3 of both the original post and my response to
eal166, which states these very ideas. If nothing else, I invite her (and all other readers)
to join me in contributing to a positive discussion where together we
can explore how educators can overcome these obstacles and ensure that
Have-nots become Haves in terms of growth and benefits.

Hopefully this new post, which omits the shock value, is worthy of a
response from our community =)